Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion

pajor writes "BBC News is reporting that that The Matrix Reloaded has been banned in Egypt. The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"

Comments

So?

[ConsumedByTV]

Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar?

*Gasp*

That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

Re:So?

[mirko]

Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

Cocnerning the many religious aspects of the movie, I'd rather describe these as some uninspired mysticism.

As I am not trolling (I hate these times when one must explicitely say he's not trolling) I now expect anybody who doesn't agree with these points to discuss these with me, instead of modbombing me to oblivion.

Re:So?

[ndogg]

If you have to question something that is the "truth," then perhaps it's not "truth."

Re:So?

[TomV]

Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar

I suspect they're saying that, in a country with a history of Islamist resistance, multiple assassination attempts on President Mubarak, semi-regular spates of suicide bombings which have killed hundreds of people over the last 20 years, a country which has long been a fertile recruiting ground for the various armed Islamist groups, from Ayman al-Zawahiri down, in a country which has been struggling to maintain a secular state while its leaders are condemned as apostates and traitors, puppets of a purported US agenda to corrupt the beliefs of devout muslims, religion matters.

It's a fine piece of entertainment, it's a thought-provoking piece of art maybe. But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown? Because certainly past performance shows that introducing some thoughts from the west has caused the sort of uproar in which people get killed.

TomV

Re:So?

[Dumbush]

"That questioning the truth is a bad thing?"

Well, there are plenty of people that believe evolution doesn't exist, the earth was/is flat, and god hates Saddam Hussein =)

Re:So?

[realnowhereman]

I think "the truth" referred to by the parent is the encumbant religions in egypt. Nobody would seriously suggest that the Matrix is some sort of basis for new world order. However, I (and I believe the parent) would suggest that questioning "the truth" over the last 1000 years of human society has led to our continued advancement (and in some cases regression) as a species and should not be so lightly brushed aside.

Your point about Joe-6-amphorae not wanting to see the movie may well be true. It may well be that every egypitian would despise the movie. But we'll never know that will we because a small subset of the population has decreed that they are incapable of viewing it without destroying society. (I notice that the censor hasn't instantly gone on an all out looting spree).

I think you are concentrating too much on the content of the movie - good/bad/accurate/theistic/philosophic/whatever - none of these is the point. It could be a film about mutant peanuts from the planet foobar, the point is - it is a work of fiction that has been unilaterally edited out of a nation. The level of condecension and disrespect to the population that is needed to do such a thing is staggering.

Similar things (though not so extreme) are happening in many western societies as well at the momemnt. As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. Leaving aside the economic unfairness (to poorer families) of this, it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population; if not removing the choice then certainly limiting it serverely.

Phew. I think I'll stop now before I bust a vein or something....

Re:So?

[Kosi]

since when has Christianity not been civilized in your life time?

It was never. Just look at what christian fundamentalists are in the U.S. government and what those brickheads did and do.

Re:So?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

One of the definitions of civilized is refined and sophisticated. Since the Catholic church only recognized that the earth orbits the sun (instead of vice-versa) within my lifetime, and it is a more sophisticated and refined description of our solar system, that is an example of uncivilized behavior from Christianity within our time (especially considering that people were put to death for claiming the Earth orbited the sun...)

Re:So?

[realnowhereman]

But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown?

Yes.

I was told a story by my Mum, who works in a children's nursery. She suggested to the playgroup leader that they get one of those boards with the kids names on and give them gold stars for doing something good. The idea was rejected; the reason being that the playgroup leader once worked as a missionary in Africa, teaching children. They introduced just such a board. When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars. Did this make better children? The result - the children who would have gotten stars no longer did, perhaps leaving them unrewarded and unfulfilled; the children who thought bullying was acceptable were never corrected and were left to continue on in life to who knows what; the teachers are left feeling impotent - there job has become to tip-toe around children, not causing trouble.

I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better.

Re:So?

[LeoDV]

I believe it was Ben Franlkin who said (not exact quote) "if you are willing to give up a bit of your liberty for peace of mind, then be ready to give up all your liberty for you will never have peace of mind" I know it sounds like I'm minimizing your very sound argument with some general, stereotyped quote about freedom of speech, but think about it. A choice between a movie and the political stabililty of a middle eastern country sounds pretty easy, but if Egypt say "We banned that movie because if not it might disturb the peace." and we just go "Oh. Well I guess it's okay then." haven't we opened a floodgate that's going to be very hard to close?

Re:So?

[MosesJones]

I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better

Umm this rings a bit hollow given the Matrix Reloaded is a movie created by Hollywood, a set of companies that rarely portray reality and often produced badly twisted and potentially offensive characterisations.

Lets put it this way, Al Jazerra is pilloried in the US and yet represents the view of the US from the Arab nations. Isn't this abuse of the channel exactly the same as what Egypt is doing here ? Except that what the US aims to do to Al Jazeera is dealing at a much less superficial level than banning a movie.

Maybe, just maybe, for Egypt this film would be considered offensive and this censoring is indicative of the failure of Hollywood to look outside its borders.

Re:So?

[Surak]

Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

You are the only person I see so far that *gets* it -- only you slightly missed it by *that* much ... /me holds thumb and index finger together

Mostly, the Egyptian censor is probably freaking out of about the word 'Zion'. Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...the Egyption censor feels that the term Zion anyway, refers to Israel.

That's it. That's all that he's freaked out about, most likely.

Re:So?

[the gnat]

Most brands of Christianity that survive today have learned to cope with modernity in all its varied forms. I do not particularly care for the Christian Right, but they are generally reconciled to a technologically advanced, pluralistic society. Their odd hangups about gay people and school prayer are actually exceptions to this rule. The only groups that explicitly reject modern life are small sects like the Amish and (to a lesser degree) the Jehovah's Witnesses, neither of which can be considered a viable political or social force in any country. (The Amish don't even proslytize - they just keep to themselves, and can't be compared to radical Islamists.)

The more virulent brands of Islam, however, most certainly do prefer a less sophisticated society. The Taliban seriously did drive Afghanistan further into the Stone Age than the Russians managed to. Banning television, eliminating women's education, blowing up its cultural heritage - it's not cultural chauvinism to call this "uncivilized". Turkey has shown (imperfectly) that it's possible to form a large Western democracy from a Muslim population, but they did this by explicitly rejecting Islamic influences on government.

This is the key point: no thriving, modern democracy that I can think of has been able to advance as long as its government is tied to religious leaders. The only first-world nation whose identity is bound to a particular sect is Israel, and I'd argue that Israel is a little more complicated (they don't evangelize either, for one). I realize it's fashionable to compare Bush and the Religious Right to the Nazis or the Catholic Inquisition, but the influence of religious leaders on US government is many orders of magnitude less than in, say, Saudi Arabia. Unless you equate abortions with civilization, it's hard to see what your complaint is.

(A side point: what this means is probably that we will never see another country that joins a thriving, evangelical religion with a modern, pluralistic, technically advanced society. The only way to have both is to completely separate them as in the US (most of the time), which then limits the extent to which religion can influcence the development of the nation and culture. The only sect I can think of that might prove this wrong is the Mormons.)

Re:So?

[KjetilK]

Disclaimer: Didn't RFTA, haven't seen any of the movies.

But I have been to Egypt, and my parents have been there twice. It is a fantastic country, allthough you'll see bottomless poverty like I have seen in no other place. Egyptians, like most arabs, are very friendly and respectful people, very proud of their history and their country, with good reason I might add.

And indeed, islamist extremism is a serious threat to not only most Egyptians, but the entire region , and possibly the whole earth. But it is a problem because people do not have basic human rights. It is the obvious poverty problem. Unemployed people have too much time on their hands, and they are easy prey for extremists.

But they do not have the right to free expression, to peacefully protest, the suppression of the people is what is causing the problem.

In that situation, it is my sincere belief that the problems must be addressed by openness, by allowing people to speak, and by allowing them to participate in society. It is the only way to confront extremism, to insist on more human rights. When exposed to different viewpoints, extremism will be moderated.

It is troubling that if you go into the bazars, you'll hear everybody is a vocal opponent of US foreign policy. So, they have the freedom to say it as long as it is not heard, as long as it is uninfluencial. That is good and all, in many places they cannot do that, but they have very little freedom to say it out loud and clear, the torture chamber awaits you. This is the disturbing fact you never hear about. Everybody is so scared to islamist extremism, nobody thinks about their basic rights.

But, to combat extremists, the only thing you can do is to emphasize, they have rights too.

Mubarak certainly has many qualities as leader, but it is very important not to turn the blind eye to some severe shortcomings.

What this has to do with the Matrix is left as an exercise to the reader... :-)

Re:So?

[ThinWhiteDuke]

You, Sir, just proved yourself insensitive, arrogant and irrelevant.

Insensitive, because you just suggest, from the comfort of your couch, that other people's lives should be put at risk. Speaking of death and suffering so easily is indecent. Try to improve on this and you might have a chance to become a human being.
Arrogant, because you just compare a whole nation with nursery kids. You don't have a fucking clue about what's going on in Egypt. But that doesn't stop you from demeaning people who deal with the issues everyday. What makes you think you're better? What makes you think you would behave better if you faced the same problems? Do you have the faintest idea of what are the problems we are talking about?
Irrelevant, because this is not an issue of rewarding good and punishing bad. Airing the Matrix is not a reward for the good people; protecting them from death and injury is. Airing the Matrix is not a punishment for terrorists; preventing them from spreading further death and chaos is.

Heck, I'm rereading your post and I'm trying to put myself in an Egyptian's shoes. If I was Egyptian, I'd be infuriated by this. You don't have a clue, yet you talk like an expert (in a humiliating way) and you play with other people's lives because you don't care.

Re:So?

[ZaMoose]

You've bought into the lie that Islamic terrorism is a symptom of poverty and repression. Certainly, it gains traction because the vast majority of Arabs live under repressive governments and are unable to advance their own condition, no matter their efforts.

However, the vast majority of terrorists have been Western-educated, come from middle class families (at the very least) and would generally be considered part of the "elite" in their respective societies, with the exception of suicide bombers in Israel (which vary greatly in family background, although most are teenaged/20-something males).

Please don't contribute to the incorrect "poor, repressed people acting out" meme.

And How Do the People Feel?

[Nom du Keyboard]

And how do the Egyptain people feel about having this decision made for them by others?

Funny how that question never seems to be asked, or answered, in these articles.

You know, if the Kingdom of God and Heaven could be brought down by a movie, we'd of been standing in the shards of it long since.

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[neksys]

Well, thats what governments do -- they make decisions for the citizenry based on percieved need. You forget that in many parts of the world, religion is intrinsic to everyday life -- the Church in many cases is the State. Religion is hugely important to most of the middle east... I daresay nearly as important as the "war on terror" is to the United States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light. Its all a question of cultural values. How do you feel that your government won't let you make "How to destroy government buildings for dummies"?

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[den_erpel]

Wether or not they are egyptians, we have decisions about content made for us by others who think they can decide "for the greater good" of all. Us westerers should stop looking down on other civilisations, we have it too as this article clearly shows. Germans can't see Nazis, Australians can't see red blood and Americans freak on the sight of sex.

I can understand the caution of the film board in Egypt, after all, they don't want to see another Karnak massacre by some bunch of extremists, backed by a number of news papers (which will deny all responsibility of course).

Avoiding extremist religious fanatics is hard as it is, so why wait until people get killed? In this case, I guess it is a small price to pay, ...

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[Troed]

How do US citizens feel about having been lied to about why they had to go to war with Iraq? About their government fabricating "evidence" placed in front of the UN?

There are no weapons of mass destruction

There are no connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Iraq never tried to buy uranium from Nigeria

... and the american people say "baa baa".

(mod me down, but you can't avoid the facts)

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[Jonathan]

you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

And _The Matrix_ *doesn't* do this? A bunch of incredibly self-righteous people hide from a more technological society, occasionally venturing out to do battle with the mainstream world. Innocent people get killed, but that's considered a-okay by the group's leaders.

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

For speech to be useful, doesn't it need to have an audience?

The point of free speech is not, necessarily, that "useful" speech occur. It's more a bastion against the thinking that the government can say, a priori, what is "useful", or what is "true". Should everything that can be said, be said? Probably not. Who should make that determination? The citizens, through the discourse they choose to hold.

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[bludstone]

you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

Like Star Wars?

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[TheDredd]

Exactly: Mr Smith called Morpheus a terrorist in The Matrix

One persons terrorist is the other persons freedom fighter

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[kubrick]

Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is, and that's what the post I replied to seemed to be advocating.

The limitation of the discussion to Americans seemed interesting as well, as if they are the only ones with the right to an opinion on this issue... the reason I linked to David Hicks' web page was to show that other people are affected when Americans decide to chuck human rights out of the window, it's not merely an internal matter. If he's committed a crime, charge him. In a court. You know, laws and things. Don't just lock him in a cage and forget about him.

(The Aussie Government isn't doing anything to help matters, of course. Bastards. About what you'd expect, given their record of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time imprisoning refugees from those regimes in concentration camps in the desert. God, this country's fucked.)

Wow

[CptChipJew]

"The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs."

I think that quote speaks for itself.

Unfortunatly

[Martigan80]

This is what happens when religion is mixed with government. Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.

Plus it's a good way to keep you religion in power. Besides have one Islamic based government (Saudi Arabia) out law cellular phones with cameras?

Overanalyzed Much?

[Chromodromic]

All this proves is how global our community has become ... and how Egypt can be just as susceptible to a bunch of overhype about pseudo-philosophy in a movie as a bunch of AintItCool.com readers ...

"Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns. There are so many already well documented gaping holes and problems with the Matrix universe, that to read a search for God into this extremely Hollywood-ish movie--Keanu Reeves is our new Messiah? spare me--is only indicative of the starvation for spiritual themes that our culture is undergoing. It's like seeing God on the back of a cereal box--or getting God as the prize at the bottom.

Which would suck, because the coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy that got stuck on the roof. Bummer. What kind of a Neo would let a little boy down?

Well, there's one thing about the new religion, and I don't know if it's cool or not ... but at least the new Messiah can have hot monkey love with Carrie Anne Moss ...

Re:Overanalyzed Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pseudo-philosophy? Riiiiight. Just because it raises issues that are well covered in philosphy, doesn't change the fact that it is philosophy. Saying it isn't philosophy, when it clearly covers philosophical ideas, is like calling a text book on Platos allegory of the cave, or determinism as is the case with reloaded, psuedo philosophy because, shock horror, it covers theories that have been well thought out and covered in the past. Perhaps you should actually go out and see the movie instead of regurgitating the opinions of the various film critics who didn't understand the movie, unless you live in Egypt of course.

Egyptain Religion is Weak...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Egyptain religions beliefs are weak beyond belief...

...if they can be brought down by a single movie.

Of course, I remember when there were those in America preaching the end of the world would arrive if The Last Temptation of Christ ever made it to the theaters.

Wonder why those people weren't interviewed about those statements afterwards.

Why not censor the first movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking... why they didn't banned the first
Matrix movie? After all, is in that movie where Neo is featured as some kind of messiah, while in Reloaded is rationalized as just "a necessary anomaly" that can be explained scientifically...

Wait, maybe the fact that religion can be explained by rational ways is what these censors fear?

Re:Congratulations Egypt

[Nom du Keyboard]

one of two statements are true.
#1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
#2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
My money is on #2.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out #1. After all, they have allowed the government to be put in place over them that fears #2.

Not far from what people think here

[bigmattana]

While we have the freedom of speech here in the U.S., similar thinking regarding the fear of talking about religion is alive here. Religion these days is like sex was 100 years ago - nobody thinks it is appropriate to talk about, as if some sort of war or riot is going to break out of we talk about it. When will people understand that there can be both peace and difference of opinions and beliefs at the same time? If we think we have to neuter ourselves for the sake of getting along with others, then we have truly given up. We don't need to voluntarily self-impose such restrictions as Egypt is on our own talk and thoughts. I am glad that the Matrix 2 looks at some of these issues. (Though I am always a little worried when Hollywood does try to look at religious issues.) I think that part of the reason many people think the movie is so deep is that they had never thought about such things for themselves before.

Nope. Sorry.

[Mr2cents]

which we all respect and believe in.

Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

Re:Nope. Sorry.

[el-spectre]

Not true. There are (by my observation) 2 main types of atheists:

1) The ones who for some reason are upset (angry, afraid, whatever) with "God", and thus deny the existence thereof. Many of these folks are unhappy and a bit hostile. A lot of atheists get a bad rap because of this.

2) Those of us who simply see no conclusive evidence for a god (or if you're afraid of commitment, you call yoursef agnostic :)), and so don't believe. These type of people are typically quieter about their lack of faith.

The logic that 'you must believe to deny' is flawed... it assumes that faith is the default.

I maintain that faith is trained into people, the default is probably to believe nothing (in the sense that we don't know language, social skills, etc. before we are trained.)

Life of Brian

[bananahammock]

This film was initially banned in Norway for blasphemy. It wasn't released there until 1980 - IMDB

Western countries also have their skeletons in the closet.

Pragmatic not Knee Jerk

[Martin Spamer]

Here, Here. Egypt is a secular state with freedom of religion, however its Government and society is under considerable pressure from a large minority of religious zealots. This is likely a pragmatic not a knee jerk action, given the Matrix::Reloaded is already available 'underground'.

Re:Can someone please explain to me..?

[Dark Lord Seth]

I remember the good old days where we would just shrug it off and call it a bad storyline...

Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?

About banning movies

[Levvie]

First of all, I do not agree with banning movies, I think it's to the individual to decide weither they go and watch a movie or not, but... afaik banning movies is something that happens all the time, I can remember a movie made by several countries telling their own story about the 9/11 attacks, it was banned in several countries (i'm almost sure the us was one of them) because the gouvernment decided it was a political/religious incorrect movie, also here in .be the movie was only available in a select group of independent alternative theaters for the same reasons. I don't see any difference between these facts, exept that the matrix reloaded is a famous movie in a great part of the world. Just try and respect the fact that others may find it harmfull for there own religion/politics, as we might think the same way about theirs.

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain...

[SeanTobin]

Not that tough on its face value. Some spoilers here, but if you haven't seed/downloaded the movie by now, you aren't going to. If you are planning to wait for dvd, don't read this.

The architect says that this is the 6th incarnation of the one [confirming evidence, The guy who likes to curse in french and makes really good desserts said he "survived his predicessors"].

The reason that the one exists is because of a 'flaw' in a basic equation of the matrix. Earlier attempts at Matrices (how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?) failed because the brains would reject the programming. A solution was found that gave the people a 'choice' to accept the program or not, at a subconcious level. Those that rejected it ended up in Zion.

The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One. Because it is a forseen eventuality, the machines believe that they can control it. Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

Now, the architect says that the One is supposed to then distribute the code he carries back into the prime program. I suppose to 'rebalance' the equation, but we didn't get there yet. I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.. in order to get something else done. Probably after the destruction of Zion, he will have to pick the people to repopulate Zion, otherwise the unbalancedness will destroy the matrix.

And that's about it to explain the architect scene. Again, he lays it out fairly plain. Now to mess with your heads a little :)

Remember afterwards when they were back in the ship and he was talking to Morpheus about what happened, and why the war wasn't over. Neo said the following: "It doesn't matter. I believed him." To me, that line just sounded slightly out of character. And it probably was supposed to.

Think back to when Neo was talking to the Oracle. When he asked how he could believe her, she replied: "You can't. You have to make up your own damn mind." I think that a good portion of movie 3 is going to revolve around that.

Re:The one thing I didn't understand

[SolubleFrank]

In my mind it was either:
a) Neo's many conflicting reactions on all forms of consciousness.ÂÂ
or
b) The Architect's list of every possible way Neo could react.

Re:Yeah, within a virtual system

[DarkZero]

Have you not noticed that everyone who sees The Matrix is a philosopher for a day?
They normally would laugh at the thought of reading Descartes, Plato, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc, but when they see the pop-culture, hollow corpse of the afore-mentioned writers works, they are automatically philosophers.

Currently, there are two possible results of pop culture:
1. Philospher for a day who has become interested in the basic philosophical questions raised by the Matrix
2. "Wow, that chick's tits were AWESOME , dude!"

Thanks to the Matrix, pop culture might be on a slow climb upward. Don't try to fuck it up and send us back to Captain Horndog's Big-Tits-Big-Guns-Even-Bigger-Tits Bonanza just because pop culture hasn't gone from zero to Philosophy Major in 3.6 seconds. When someone mentions the basic philosophical questions that are raised by the Matrix, maybe you should politely point them toward Descartes instead of mocking their enthusiasm for something better than Die Hard 460: Die Harder Than You've Ever Died Hard Before WITH A VENGEANCE.

Re:Can someone please explain to me..?

[jago25_98]

me too, well a bit anyway.

I don't really enojoy action. The thing I came for was the storyline.

Now, the storyline was good but there wasn't much of it in this one. Where were the suprises and tragedys? It was nearly constant action.

It feels like they've tried to draw out 2 films into 3.

Having said all this there was one scene that made all the shallowness and pretentiousness ok, much like Yoda fighting in the last Starwars.

It's a lot more enjoyable if you think you can read into it, but there's actually not a lot of depth in the end - God, Judas, the Devil, blah blah

Hopefully I'll find something new though, and the next Matrix COULD be better. At least this film has lowered a few expectations for the next.

Re:Congratulations Egypt

[Eisenstein]

Of course the USA would never censor or ban anything.

Re:Congratulations Egypt

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Talk about an uninformed, self-righteous post!!!

Ever travelled to Egypt? Ever read articles about the country from multiple sources (yes, that means other than Fox News)? Ever tried to genuinely understand what's going on over there and how Egyptians think?

Egypt is NOT a theocracy. Egyptian law actually bans Islamist political parties. Because Egypt has a HUGE problem with radical Islamism. One that dwarfs 9/11. Islamist terrorism does not mean "once, 2 years ago" in Egypt. It means "every month or so".

Egypt is not a full democracy either; at least not in the modern, western sense. Yet, they have made continuing progress on that path, considering that just 30 years ago, they were in a state of chronic war against Israel. They are now one of the most stable, reliable country in this region.

You're so obscured by your binary (good/evil) way of thinking that you can't even read.
"Such religious issues, raised in previous times, caused crises." Violence also played a part in the decision, the committee said. "Screening the movie may cause troubles and harm social peace," according to the statement.
Remember, we're talking about a country that has a long history of war against Israel and is painfully trying to get over it. They are plagued by groups of armed Islamist terrorists. This movie portrays Zion as the last hope of Mankind, as a sanctuary where good is besieged by evil. They KNOW that the Matrix is going to be targetted by terrorists. Setting up a bomb in a movie theater is incredibly easy. I don't think either of your 2 statements are true. I would put my money on :
#3: This movie is offensive to most of our population. Violent groups will use this opportunity to bring death and chaos. The benefits of airing the movie do not exceed the costs.

Re:Can someone please explain to me..?

[Farley Mullet]

Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?

It's pretty hard to be disappointed by a movie staring Canoe Reeves. I mean, to be disappointed there has to be some sort of expectation that it's not going to suck in the first place, and, let's face it, brother can't act to save his life (Bill and Ted is a modern masterpiece though, don't get me wrong). Although frankly I thought Larry Fishburn was more than disappointing: he does Shakespeare regularly, he was Cowboy fucking Curtis -- why'd he have to suck? I've seen popsicle sticks give less wooden performances. The only redeeming performance in the movie was Agent Smith, who was just hilarious.

But getting back to your point -- the first movie was a little too "gee-whiz" with their adolescent philosophy, but at least the plot held together, more or less. But after a zillion fanboys telling them how deep the movie was, and seeing press clippings mentioning their names in the same sentence as, say, Plato or Kant or Buddah or whatever, the Whatemacallem brothers decided to lay the weirdass metaphysics on a little thick in the sequel. And what happened? The movie wasn't pseudo-cryptic, or an interesting conversation starter for people who think solipsism has to with worshiping the longest and shortest days. Nope, it just plain didn't make sense. Like you said, a bad story.

Religion in, rational thought out.

[panurge]

I'm not surprised by the Egyptian reaction. It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity. Wars have been fought over the definition of both of them. Sadly, as someone with connections to Reform Judaism and non-Trinitarian Christianity, I believe that the present Government of Israel (and not, please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people) has so disgraced the word "Zion" that its use should be subject to the greatest care.

To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.

Anyone who has read Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses will know how difficult the whole area is. Although it was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous, the real reason for the attack was Rushdie's description of an Ayatollah in exile, which was uncomplimentary to say the least. Mubarak may not be a democrat or hugely lovable by Western standards, but he has largely held Egypt together without it collapsing into fundamentalism. Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East. The last thing he needs is Taliban inspired crazies going berserk over a movie that presents "Zion" as the good guys, and using this as a lever to attack the government. I suggest that college-age kids who don't get this probably need to obtain passports and visit the region, and LISTEN. Perhaps if enough of them do, one day we'll get a government with a clue about the Middle East. But I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Religion in, rational thought out.

[jake007]

It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity.

First, you can never please everyone. We would have no books, no movies, in fact we would have nothing if we always caved in and self-censored.

Second, what should be so insensitive about Zion (Sinai)? That's where - traditionally - the Jewish code of law was given and note that both Christianity and Islam relate to it. Why not show a movie which treats it creatively, yet with some respect? There's nothing wrong in playing with items from our shared heritage if it's done with sane mind and has some artistic quality.

...the present Government of Israel has so disgraced the word "Zion"...

That's a serious accusation but you bring no evidence. First, the present government of Israel has been democratically elected, just like every government in Israel to-date. Can you say that about Egypt which you call "a better society than much of the Middle East"?

Second, being democratically elected the government represents the majority of its electorate. Your excuse that you don't mean, "please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people" is lame.

it [Satanic Verses] was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous

You miss the point. It is Mr. Rushdie who has been attacked, his life turned upside down because otherwise Iran's Islamic rulers would have had him long killed by now!

Your advise? He shouldn't have written a "difficult" book. That's the wrong advise. You must never give in to criminals and those who pervert human values. Instead, you hunt them down (if possible) and punish according to their crimes. This is the major tenet of our Western civilization as we know it - we define what our rights are and defend them. If we don't, soon we won't have any left.

how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"?

US fundamentalists?? Do they decide what we get to see on the TV? Do they censor the newspapers? If an Egyptian made a movie as you describe, I think pretty much noone in the US would give a damn. Try to come up with a better analogy.

You mention Taliban. Hm, you are right we don't want them in Egypt. Does it help then to not screen Matrix and instead show the Protocols of Zion, made up by Russian Secret Police to blame an economic misery on the Jews? Does it help to smuggle TNT belts to Gaza so that they can be used to blow up busses with people like you and me in them? Does it help to issue building permits for mosques but not for churches even though Egypt sports a sizable Coptic Christian minority? Look up on the net how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Egyptians, how many of the virulently anti-human Islamic preachers active in mosques in the UK and US studied their craft at the state-controlled Egyptian University of Cairo.

Before "letting a rational though out", please get the facts straight first. Thank you.

had it banned already...

[jeremie_z_]

... for it's obvious hollywoodesque crap with kung-fu combat and MTV-like state of the art wrapping. you can call this a troll as i didn't see the sequel but just got that impression from the first one. i guess my adolescence crisis is over by now... the real Matrix for me lies in Gibson's work, not in expensive mortal-kombat-like exhibitions...

Re:Truth versus Belief

[apdt]

I would like to offer an alternative definition for belief...

belief is the acceptance of something that you cannot prove absolutely.

There are very few things in the real world that can be proven absolutely. For everything else you have to go on the balance of evidence.

Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship

[Quizo69]

Having lived in a country that has no copyright laws (PNG) I've seen the proliferation of imported pirated VCDs and recently DVDs sold openly in every shop.

What will happen in a country like Egypt is that pirates (the real, organised crime gang type) will simply supply the demand which will be there, because the more affluent Egyptians will have read about how the Matrix: Reloaded is a kick arse movie and wish to see it.

Furthermore, those with internet connections (there will be plenty) will download the inevitable DivX release and share it with their friends, thus spreading it through yet another channel.

This is why censors are becoming irrelevant in our technological society. In Australia censors have recently banned "Ken Park" from even screening at a film festival! No matter that it aired at Cannes etc, we're apparently not mature enough to form our own opinion on the matter. The same goes for Egypt, in this case though it's based on religion instead of sex, but it always sees to be the trinity of Sex, Politics and Religion that people feel they must suppress for the good of the populace. So when "Ken Park" is released on the net, it too will be downloaded and watched, regardless of what some censor in an office says we should or shouldn't watch.

"The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship." - don't have the name of the quoter sorry.

Quizo

As an American who resides in Egypt....

[Soul Colossus]

I was very dissapointed to hear this a few days ago as I and many of my egyptian friends have been eager to see this. I moved here just over a month ago with my father and since I'm now in a 3rd world country I've had to give up many indulgencies of American life such as viewing movies when they're released. This commitee defintely does NOT accurately reflects the views and beliefs of Muslim Egyptians I know here, the Matrix is pretty freaking popular. As far as reflecting Jewish/Zionist beliefs, that's just a crock of hot, steaming shit, they're just making up their excuse as they go along, especially as Jews aren't taking a liking towards here. Now I'll have to resort to pirating the movie so as an athiest and American I will get to enjoy it without all the corruption it would supposedly hearld.

Re:Truth versus Belief

[spongman]

Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy). As soon as you start talking about nature, the "real" world, you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter probability. As for the existence of God, statistically the probability is zero, but with a finite margin of error. I liken the existence of God to the health of Schrodinger's cat. You don't know he exists until you die.

If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?

Re:Zion...

[Sycraft-fu]

No it wouldn't. There is a big difference between public uprorar, movie theatres refusing to show something, and a government ban. There is lots of material out there that is only available in certian outlets because the public doesn't like it. A good example of something actually not too extreme is the Anarchists' Cookbook. You aren't going to see this out in front in Barnes and Nobles, but it is available and legally so, amazon.com seels it for example. It is the sort of thing that the public does not approve of and, all said and done, law enforcement would rather not have in public hands. Yet it is available.

The public has a right to speak out against things they don't like and refuse to buy them. Movie theatres have a right to choose not to show a film for any number of reasons. However if the government decides to ban something outright, that is very different. I am quite sure that if a movie came out that made terrorists out to be heros it would be villified in the US. No major theatre would show it, no normal movie store would sell it or rent it. However I also firmly believe it would not be banned by the government. If you care to do some digging, there are plenty of books out there that villify America and make us out to be evil, books that you can buy and read in America.

Re:Got all that...

[TephX]

Some words in the Architect's speech are completely superfluous (for example, there's no reason for him to say "apropos" when he does, and it's even slightly nonsensical in context). However, the vast majority of it is just a long, convoluted way of saying the same things that others have said in their summaries in this thread. I have no doubt the Architect's speech was designed to confuse a reasonably high percentage of the viewers (he could have said everything he did far more simply). But it also creates an interesting effect for those who look a little deeper, as it seems at least plausible that an earlier AI program (remember, the Architect created the Matrix, so he's pretty old) would favor using a lot of technical terms so as to be as precise as possible.

Close...but just a little wrong.

[mcoko]

Neo makes the choice that will cause the Matrix to fall and kill the entire human population, including Zion.

If Neo chose the door to HIS right (the left of the screen from the Architects perspective) then Zion would fall, the Matrix would RESET and NEO could choose 23 people (17 female and 6 male) to join him in making the new ZION and start the whole damn thing over again (the seventh Matrix/Zion).

If Neo chose the door to HIS left (the right side of the screen from the Architects perspective), then he could save Trinity but it would cause a feed back in the Matrix destroying it and killing every human plugged in. Also the sentinals would still destroy Zion.

Neo made the choice to save Trinity therefore condeming the entire human race (Matrix plugies and Zionites), but he knows there is something he can do. For one he can affect the sentinals in the real world (is it really the real world? hmmm). And two why would he make that choice and then admit that there was nothing he could do (in response to Morpheus asking what had happened, that Neo was a piece of the CONTROL just like everything else, Oracle, Crazy French Guy, etc.)

I guess we will have to wait and see how they FIX the Matrix so that the entire human race doesn't die.

Or maybe the Woz Brothers agree with many that the human race's worst enemy is itself and they will let it happen. Time will tell

Re:Fuck you Egypt

[NoMaster]

Alas, all these things ARE true for a culture that existed 2,000+ years ago.

Sadly it is not a culture of today.

Today the tribes of the area are too busy killing each other in the name of a dozen religions. They're too busy filling their souls with hate and killing off the dissenters with the odd ideas which will become the next medicine or math or a myriad of other futures. They're too busy protecting their own stuff/turf/wealth/power to worry about what could be.

Y'know, cut just one zero out of that first sentence and you could be talking about the US ;-)

Re:BBFC gave it a 15

[tonyl]

We watch movies of murder, and we censor the breast

Well, duh. as should be obvious to everyone who has ever seen one, breasts are very, very dangerous.

Not as bad as penises though. Those things can poke your eye out.

Seriously: the general fear of anything sexual is sick. Not that sex isn't a powerful emotional force that needs respect and careful handling. But I think on balance we'd be far better off with more sex and less violence.

Sounds like China

[bakuretsu]

'...it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'

... Because we thoughtfully shelter the people from everything else.

I wonder if Egyptians can search for "Buddhism" on Google ;-P

Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving!

[TomV]

... islamic fundamentalists a such a peace loving people, committed to the continuation of "social peace" and avoid "crisis" at all costs.
...which might have some relevance here if the government of Egypt was an islamist fundamentalist government, rather than a secular government which has for decades been in 'crisis', trying to cope with an ongoing islamist fundamentalist revolution which has killed many hundreds of people and nurtured several of the most hard-core 'afghan' commanders. There's been no 'social peace' in Egypt for a very long time, and past experience suggests that allowing the showing of a film which portrays a supposed 'promised land' called, of all things, Zion (not provocative at all, eh?).

'Their social problems' are obviously not the result of western movies. However, their social problems do mean that the showing of this film could cause the sort of unrest that gets cinemas bombed. Which is turn leads to people getting killed. That's killed as in dead, as in bereaved relatives in mourning, as in families without breadwinners, as in, well, if you've had to deal with the death of a loved one you know what I'm talking about. Not as in 'OK, so roll me up another Agent Smith and let's continue the groovy action sequence'.

The government of Egypt is, effectively, more than 20 years into a civil war against the fundamentalists, and that does make a difference in this sort of decision. If it was Saudi Arabia or Iran we were talking about (or Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, plenty of others to choose from) then, yes, it would be ludicrous. But it isn't. Very sad, yes, but while I'm entirely free to sacrifice MY life for my beliefs in freedom of speech, expression and so forth, I have absolutely NO right to sacrifice someone else's life for anything at all.

TomV

Pornographic movies would be an example

[dorfsmay]

In north american culture the human naked body is a bad thing, and as a result, "to protect children", any movie with human naked body in it has all kind of restriction around it and around who can rent it, what time it can be aired etc....

There are still culture around the world (although less and less) where people just walk around naked. Last I have heard, the children in those culture are completely normal, and haven't turned blind for seeing nudity.

Another one you could look at is drugs, some very bad drugs responsible for thousand of deaths per year are legal (eg: alcohol), yet others which do not seem to be as harmfull aren't...

So in Egypt they have a thing about religion...

Religon is so much fun!

[Quixadhal]

I love religious debate... it's so much fun because it almost always breaks down into "Prove it!" vs. "You have to believe."

It's understandable that Egypt (with a rocky political situation these days, and a strong Islamic population that, like its two brethren religions, is not know for tolerance of conflicting ideas) might want to exercise a little caution in how the philosophical/religious views of The Matrix are presented... but to ban something entirely because you're afraid to let people draw their own conclusions is just going to make it worse.

What Egypt has done is declare this film to be forbidden fruit. The younger people will now go to every extreme to find that movie and watch it, and they'll make more of it then they would have if it were just another flick, because it's on the forbidden list!

Consider, people under the age of 21 (here in the US) usually make a big deal out of consuming alcohol -- they get older friends to buy it for them, they get fake ID's, they do all kinds of things because the perceived value has been elevated by the fact that they can't just go buy it themselves. About 1-5 years after turning 21, the charm wears off, and it just becomes another item on the shopping list.

I suspect you can extend that concept to any illegal substance, but that's a different debate.

Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.

In science, we build systems of proof which allow you to extend a concept, using the assumption that the underlying concept was correct. Hence, we can talk about molecular bonds in terms of the interaction of subatomic particles... using the assumptions that those subatomic particles work as we believe. Make that a recursive algorithim, and you're on your way to defining the Universe by science.

In a religion, the depth of the predicate tree is usually much shorter. We describe how the world came to be, and why things are, and why we should act in certain ways. The ultimate predicate for this is that the Creator said so.

The difference between the two is that science breaks things down far enough so that it becomes difficult to fragment into factions. Unlike most (other) religions, scientists are generally willing to modify their belief system when another theory makes more sense. Example: Relativity vs. Quantuum Mechanics. For decades, those have been two rival belief systems, but now they are resolving their differences and merging those systems to get a step closer to God (The Unified Field Theory).

Imagine, for a moment, how interesting it would be if the various religions would take a similar approach...

But, people always have strong feelings when they get ideas in their heads. Denying the "truth" of one man's interpretation of a single line in the Bible is just like telling a computer scientist that a bit can be half on, or SCO/Caldera that they don't matter anymore. They'd rather fight to defend their belief, than have to change the way they see the world around them.

At least it's entertaining... :)

Re:Religon is so much fun!

[greg_barton]

Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.

Ah, but the nature of that "faith" in both systems is different.

In science, that faith can always be questioned, and the process for redefining your assumptions is formally defined. In religion, there is no process (within the system) for redefining your base assumptions. The change must come from outside the system. (i.e. social and environmental events and pressures)

That's not to say change only comes to the base assumptions of science from science itself. In fact, it's historically been more likely to come from outside. But, at least in the orthodox religions, there is too much resistance to change and no formal mechanism for change in the first place.

Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow...

[DrXym]

How is that any worse that the usual Hollywood trash of arabs always being portrayed as evil terrorists out to get the US?

Religion that delicate?

[chonet4444]

It's always amazed me how delicate religion seems to be. I mean really: "'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'".

Apparently it's exceedingly easy to point out that the emperor has no clothes, at least when it comes to religion.

Either that or one piece of fantasy (the movie) can easily supplant the older fantasy (the religion) in the minds of the rubes (the worshippers).

Just my $.02.

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER**

[kjd]

The Oracle never tells Neo he isn't the one. Go watch the scene again and listen more carefully to her words. She tells him what he needed to hear, just like Morpheus said.

Think about how the story would be different if she flat-out said he was the one (when he still didn't believe it yet), or flat-out told him he was not (without telling him he would have to choose between his own life and Morpheus').

Get in line w/ the rest of the sheep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning a movie because of something like religion, just really shows the lack of belief and instability of the religions that surround these people...I believe all people can believe in what they want and I believe in karma but if you let a religion take over any artistic or creative decisions you have truly become one of what I and many others call a sheep...

Re:Matrix as code

[Tackhead]

> Is there really this war between humans and the machines, or is it part of a larger scheme of control operated by other humans?

I'm surprised nobody picked up on the kid in the early part of the movie who handed Neo the spoon.

Neo1 through Neo5 decided the Architect was lying, and gambled that "the source" or whatever would set 'em free. (Instead, it was just a trap that "reloaded" the Matrix, like Ghosting a drive. OK, bug caught. Reinstall.)

Neo6 figured the Architect might not be lying. So screw it, pop through the second door and see what happens. Maybe the Architect's worried that meta-Matrix will crash (which would suck for him and for humanity, if that's where the AIs actually "live"). Or maybe not. We (the viewers) and Neo6 don't have enough information to say.

But sure enough, when Neo6 goes back into what he thought was the "real world", "there is [still] no spoon". Zion, the seekers, everything he thought was real was just a higher-level matrix, destroyed and reloaded five times before. It's just another level of control.

So Movie III is gonna be Neo6, who jumped into the meta-Matrix and just discovered that There Is No Spoon, versus (or working with!) the "free" version of Agent Smith, who somehow figured out a different way to jump from the Matrix into the meta-Matrix.

Wonder how Free Agent Smith (he's half-AI, half-newsreader? :) will react when he finds out that what he's been programmed to believe is the "real world of the machines", and that he thought he was defending when he got Zion whacked, is also just a higher-level Matrix.

> It raises the question that it's not impossible that we ourselves are in some kind of simulation, or are indeed simulated. There would be no way to tell, which perhaps is the problem that the Egyptian censors have with the film.

"It raises the question", heck, for the offended religion in question, you coulda stopped there. :)

> If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters and you're left with the philosophy of the marquis-de-sade. Not something any civilised society really wants.

Not quite. If nothing really is real, then nothing "really" matters and you're left with having to (as the Oracle put it) "make up your own damn mind" on how to live. IMO that's something many societies could benefit from, and something most religious societies are extremely threatened by.

(And IMNSHO, that's a feature, not a bug :)

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER**

[Brendan Byrd]

Or more correctly, the Oracle explained that Neo is not the One, "not in this lifetime anyway". Thus, Neo was not the One, not until he DIED, and was "reborn". New lifetime, and now he's the One. Perhaps it's stretching the definition of "lifetime", but it definately fits.

Re:Got all that...

[TephX]

I know the common meaning of "apropos". The Architect's usage of it sounds strange because 1) it's too obvious to bear mention that Trinity (Neo's previous one-word line) is the subject the Architect was discussing in the antepenultimate line, and 2) I've never seen that usage before - and since I am at least familiar with the term itself, something which I don't think you can assume for most viewers of the movie, that usage must be rare indeed. It sounds like a speech affectation that somehow made it into the dictionary, actually. While I'm at it, other examples of things that sound odd (trying to go with only issues that are relatively close to the surface, not deep plot speculation) in the Architect's speech:

• "Pertinent" and "relevant" are synonymous, so saying that something is both pertinent and irrelevant is an oxymoron.
• "creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations" sounds very odd given the way we use the word "equation" - an equation can't fluctuate. Presumably he is using this as a technical term to refer specifically to the type of equations (or functions, more likely) needed to instantiate an environment such as the Matrix.
• "allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program" - must be jargon for some of the issues involved in the Matrix. Not comprehensible without more explanation of how the Matrix works, but probably not meant to be - just some "technobabble" to reassure you that something technical is going on here. Or this might be illuminated in Revolutions.
• "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." This line is ambiguous. I assumed when I first saw the movie that the level they were prepared to accept was the current state, although it seems that most others thought it meant that the machines could still get by - albeit at a lower level of function - without humans.
• "Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication" and "Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason." Either the Architect likes to use the word "design" in a heavily metaphorical manner, or something really weird is going on here.

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain...

[jtdubs]

That's why the two blond-haired see-through dudes said:

"We are getting tired of this."
"Yes, we are."

Or something like that.

And that's why former-Agent Smith wants to "return the favor" to Neo and is tracking him down. It's because of some kind of revenge/vengeance that isn't born out of emotion?

It's so obvious from watching the program's interact that they have emotions. Crazy french dude cheated on his wife, so his wife got pissed, went behind his back, killed one of his favorite programs and gave the good guys the key maker, all of which infuriated french dude. Those don't sound quite like the actions of emotionless beings to me.

Justin Dubs

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain...

[Brendan Byrd]

I disagree with this insanely popular theory, because it is insanely popular, and thus, too easy. I have a feeling that the Brothers gave this bit of information away as a red herring. I never considered this and just thought that he had some control over the machines now. Instead of being some sort of other world, he could had just had some amount of command control within the machines, with the ability to say "Hey, go blow up now".

Perhaps the machines have been trying to develop telepathy among the humans. After all, the Oracle was created to "explore certain aspects of the human psyche".

Re:Believe in all three?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Judaism, Islam & Christianity all share, and were derived from, the same theology and one Biblical event; The Creator and The Creator testing Abraham's faith in Him. These three religions also preach the same points:
1. The Creator is the one and only true God/Allah.
2. We are all The Creator's children and should co-exist peacefully.

Since the three faiths have more in common with each other than they do not, one could argue that someone could belive in all three.

The scriptures of each religion were intended to be read and learned as one complete work. That in itself is the problem. What separates the three is that each has long histories where their "religious scholars" nitpick specific entries within the Torah/Tallmud/Bible as proof that their religion is the one true religion and interject their own "views" as devine word. The result is that some followers (not all) of these faiths belive and/or are misled into being voilent proponents of their faith.

It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost

[bourne]

Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...

To be precise, they are referring to Zionism, a racist ideology very popular in Israel.

Based on the rest of the comments throughout this entire topic, I can only conclude that the average /. reader slept through their history classes.

To wit: yes, the Egyptian censorship is about Zion (in the movie) and Zionism. The fact that most people missed this implies they don't know what Zionism is.

Zionism refers to a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.. To dismiss it as "a racist ideology very popular in Israel," as above, is to ignore the roots of the mideast conflict.

Put simply, Zionism was a movement based on the belief that as long as the Jews lived as ethnic minorities in other countries, they were going to be discriminated against ("discriminated" meaning "killed and robbed whenever public tension needed an outlet" - read up on the Pogroms sometime). The Dreyfus Affair convinced a reporter named Theodor Herzl that the only solution was for a Jewish homeland. He founded the Zionism movement, with the goal of creating a Jewish state. This movement slowly fought for progress over the next 50 years (see also the Balfour Declaration)

Fast-forward to 1948. After 6 million or so Jews were killed in the Holocaust, the survivors got serious about a homeland. With lots of leftover guns lying around from World War II, they founded Israel. In doing so, they resorted to terrorism, and displaced much of the non-Jewish palestinian population.

None of the neighboring countries wanted to absorb the Palestinians, and something like 6 wars have been fought since then. So, for the Egyptians, Zionism represents a massive local disruption which they've lost wars over.

So-called "Modern Zionism" is the "racist ideology" referred to above, which basically boils down to "Jewish Israel - love it or leave it." To focus on it and ignore over 100 years of history is short-sighted.

When censorship and reason unit...

[fzammett]

It never ceases to amaze me how perfectly reasonable you can make censorship sound if you really try. What I mean is, the way the censorship board's decision is worded on the surface sounds completely reasonable, well thought-out and actually in the best interest of the Egyptian public.

Then you think for half a second longer and of course realize that censorship in any form is one of the horrible things people can do to other people.

But, when you see a statement done this well, you can see why people allow their freedoms to be taken away little by little for the greater good and then wake up one day and wonder why they can't even drive to the next town over without going through two weeks of paperwork, or read a book without being condemned as a Satan-worshipper and burned at the stake.

Re:Almost

[Fnkmaster]

A) You expose your own position by referring to Israeli Zionists as "the Jews". That's no different than me referring to Hamas as "the Muslims". In other words, perhaps you should consider your own views before casting around stones like the word "racist".

B) Most Palestinians really aren't fundamentalist Muslims. Just because fundamentalist Muslims elsewhere use the Palestinians as a rallying cry doesn't mean much. Many (if not most) Palestinians are nationalists first, and Muslims second (and not necessarily fundamentalist in their view of their religion).

C) Neither side wants minority power in a secular state. The gap dividing the peoples resulting from years of war and killing is simply too large at this point in time. Thus both sides seem to agree that a two-state solution is preferable right now, and hopefully closer cooperation and friendship will come with time and peace.

D) I think you are grossly lacking in historical knowledge if you think Zionism is a reaction to Palestinian relations. Zionism is a reaction to European anti-semitism over a very long duration of time. Zionism has nothing to do with violent attacks against Palestinians - these are policy issues of Ariel Sharon and the political hawks on the Israeli far right. Israel's parliamentary system is partly to blame (the coalitions that include ultra-conservative elements and the like). Unfortunately, the Palestinian political scene is equally galvenized, and rejects moderate leaders like Mr. Abbas.

E) Racism is a loaded word, and Americans seem to get all hot and bothered whenever we use the word (as do Europeans). Liberals - bah. When you see a group of young black men walking down the street dressed a certain way, you behave in a rational, self-protecting manner by crossing to the other side of the street. Does this mean you are a racist? When you set up checkpoints to prevent suicide bombers from entering your city, does that make you a racist? Something to think on. I will be the first one to say I wish Palestinians and Israelis could work out a way to get along, but I think people like you do a disservice to everybody when you cast the issue in such ridiculous reductionist terms. Not to mention the finger pointing, which is absurd, since you can go back and forth for hours finger pointing and never get anywhere.

Not going to have intended effect

[drix]

For a government that professes to be so concerned with religion, you'd think they'd have a better grasp of the forbidden fruit phenomenon. Can anyone remember the last time something got banned where the immediate effect wasn't to greatly increase popular interest and desire for said product? RIAA sues Napster, the next day there appears a frontpage story in every newspaper in America about this great new service that lets people download music gratis. End result: 50 million new users for Napster. CD-R tax in Canada and everyone buys a thousand, just in case. Considering I could FTP a really good, 3 SVCD Centropy Telesync over to some friend in Egypt this instant, one wonders precisely how many seconds it will take before this silly "ban" is circumvented and kids are burning copies for the whole neighborhood.

matrix and beyond II

[sbulut77]

Another observation: The second movie is about causality principle. The people, who think that the second movie lacked the philosophical aspect of the first movie, should read/study causality principle and watch the entire movie based on that. You would see what they are trying to explain. They are constantly critisizing whether there is free will or choice (in other words: control) They lay it out pretty well. The people, who thinks that Heisenberg's uncertainity is the proof that the universe is not bound by the rules of determinism, are wrong. Because Heisenberg's principle only states the uncertainity in the measurement. ("Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism", Erwin Schrodinger)

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain...

[outsider007]

How does the password suggest she knew more?
because if she's aware that this is the sixth time she's done it, and the passwords started at zion0, zion0101 would be the sixth iteration's password (binarily speaking)

Isn't it Ironic...

[Ghengis]

The Matrix movies are about control as much as religion. The Egyption Gov. convieniently uses religion as its excuse, when in reality, they don't want anyone to realize the parallel between the control they exercise by banning the movie and the control the matrix gives the machines.

Re:Truth versus Belief

[Shamashmuddamiq]

Careful! You're getting really confused. You said it yourself (the mutual exclusivity principle): (1) either truth exists, or (2) truth doesn't exist. It's either one or the other, but not both. And you don't know which one it is, so you're going to assume (2).

However, in doing that, you've assumed that the answer to the riddle is an absolute truth value that is independent of your judgement -- it presupposes absolute truth -- whether or not you can know it. In that case, the only way to remedy your situation is to assume, or know (1). To assume (2) is to contradict your own reasoning and ignore logic -- supposedly the only truth you believe in.

Now try replacing "truth" in the mutual exclusivity principle with other nouns: "thought", "a spoon", "my hand". It all boils down to the same thing, whether it's abstract thought or the real world. You may not know if your hand exists, but you know absolute truth does.

If nothing I say has gotten through to you yet, I don't think I'll be able to help you. I suggest you study up on this a little bit. Take some philosophy classes when you get to college. I'd suggest a philosophical skepticism class. Read some of the works by George Moore, Wittgenstein, and Hilary Putnam. Even the harshest of recognized philosophical skeptics won't doubt that there is absolute truth, though they'll argue that you can't know it (another point I disagree with -- but that's not what we're discussing).